Omanghana
Dr. Justice Srem-Sai says the prosecution’s case concerns the alleged diversion of public funds, while the defense maintains that the money financed sensitive national security operations.
Ghana’s Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, has alleged that a coordinated public and media campaign is attempting to misrepresent and unnecessarily complicate the criminal trial of former National Signals Bureau Director-General Kwabena Adu-Boahene.
Speaking on Joy News, Srem-Sai described the matter as a “simple case” involving the alleged diversion and laundering of GH¢49 million in public funds.
He rejected suggestions that the prosecution was dealing with an unusually complicated national security transaction. According to him, the state’s case is based on bank records, financial transfers and evidence showing how money intended for cybersecurity equipment was allegedly used.
Adu-Boahene and the other accused persons have disputed the allegations. They remain entitled to the presumption of innocence unless the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
State Outlines Alleged Diversion of Funds
The prosecution alleges that Adu-Boahene established or controlled a private company bank account whose identity was presented in a manner that could make it appear connected to a state institution.
According to the state, three government checks were issued for the acquisition of cybersecurity software intended to strengthen Ghana’s national security infrastructure. Prosecutors claim that the checks were deposited into the private corporate account instead of being used for the stated procurement.
Srem-Sai maintained that the movement of the funds can be followed through documentary evidence already presented during the trial.
The prosecution argues that the case does not depend on revealing operational national security secrets. Instead, it says the central question is whether public funds approved for a particular government purpose were diverted and subsequently used for private benefit.
Funds Allegedly Traced to Houses and Vehicles
State prosecutors claim they have traced portions of the GH¢49 million to the acquisition of houses, luxury vehicles and other valuable assets.
According to the prosecution, some of the assets benefited Adu-Boahene, members of his family and close associates. The state is relying on financial records and transaction documents to establish connections between the original public funds and the purchases.
Srem-Sai said the evidence would enable the court to determine where the money went after it entered the private account.
The prosecution’s position is that the cybersecurity system for which the funds were released was never acquired. It has also alleged that receipts and supporting documents were fabricated to create the appearance that the procurement had been completed.
These claims remain contested and are subject to the High Court’s assessment of the evidence.
Defense Accuses State of Conducting Media Trial
Adu-Boahene’s defense team, led by lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea, has strongly challenged the prosecution’s account.
The defense has accused the Attorney General’s Office of selectively presenting evidence and using public commentary to create an impression of guilt before the court delivers its judgment.
Atta Akyea and his team maintain that legal arguments should be tested in court rather than through media interviews. They argue that public statements by state officials could prejudice public opinion and undermine the fairness of the proceedings.
The defense has also questioned the completeness of the prosecution’s documentary disclosures. It previously raised concerns that dozens of pages of relevant bank statements were omitted when documents were formally provided to the accused persons.
According to the defense, those omissions affect the reliability of the state’s financial narrative and may prevent the court from seeing the full context of the transactions.
National Security Operations Central to Defense
A major disagreement between the two sides concerns the purpose for which the money was allegedly used.
Adu-Boahene’s legal team argues that the funds were deployed for sensitive national security activities that could not be documented through conventional procurement and accounting procedures.
The defense suggests that the confidential nature of intelligence operations explains why some transactions may not appear in ordinary government records.
Prosecutors reject that explanation, arguing that claims of national security confidentiality cannot automatically excuse the alleged diversion of public funds into a private account.
The state also maintains that describing transactions as classified operations does not answer allegations that the money was used to acquire personal assets or that documentation was fabricated.
The court will therefore have to determine whether the funds financed legitimate security operations or were unlawfully redirected for private purposes.
Srem-Sai Alleges Campaign to Obscure the Case
Srem-Sai claimed that some public statements and media narratives were deliberately designed to make the trial appear more complicated than it is.
He said the prosecution’s evidence should be assessed by examining the source of the funds, the account into which they were deposited and how the money was eventually spent.
The deputy attorney general insisted that introducing broad national security arguments should not distract from those central questions.
His comments added to the public exchange between government prosecutors and Adu-Boahene’s defense team. Both sides have accused the other of misrepresenting developments from the courtroom.
The growing media debate has heightened public interest in the case, particularly because it involves a former head of a national intelligence institution and a substantial amount of state money.
Prosecution Preparing to Close Its Case
Despite the defense’s objections, Srem-Sai said the prosecution remained confident in the evidence presented before the High Court.
He indicated that the state intended to close its case by the end of July 2026. Once that happens, the court will determine the next stage of the proceedings in accordance with Ghana’s criminal procedure.
The accused persons may be required to open their defense if the court finds that the prosecution has established a case requiring an answer. The defense would then have an opportunity to call witnesses, present documents and challenge the state’s interpretation of the financial records.
If the court concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a sufficient case, it could discharge the accused persons without requiring them to testify.
Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the evidence admitted during the trial—not the competing claims made outside the courtroom. The prosecution must prove every element of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defense retains the right to challenge the evidence and present an alternative explanation for the transactions.
Source: Omanghana
